The Purpose of Gloucester in "King Lear"

In his Poetics, Aristotle outlines three rules for drama, dubbed the classical unities, praised by critics and followed strictly by many dramatists since Aristotle’s time. In neoclassical form, the three unities are:

1.     The unity of action: a play should have one main action that it follows, with no or few sub- plots.

2.     The unity of place: a play should cover a single physical space and should not attempt to compress geography, nor should the stage represent more than one place.

3.     The unity of time: the action in a play should take place over no more than 24 hours. (Kahan 14)

Shakespeare, in most of his dramatic works, does not follow all of these conventions. Hamlet ventures to various different locations in Denmark, while Macbeth takes place over the span of half a year. In the tragedy of King Lear, Shakespeare forsakes these rules even further by having the play take place over months of time and all throughout Britain. However, Shakespeare’s most significant transgression against Aristotle and centuries of neoclassical theater was his violation of the first rule, the unity of action. King Lear does not have just one main action; it follows the journeys of the titular King Lear and his daughters, as well as the Earl of Gloucester and his sons. The parallel plot of Gloucester mirrors that of Lear’s so closely that it can hardly even be considered a sub-plot—the two tales are halves of a whole, as are two rails of train tracks. Although Gloucester’s journey echoes that of Lear’s, Shakespeare instills in him and his sons themes that contrast and emphasize Lear’s tragedy, polishing the play with antithesis and synthesis that contribute to the drama’s universal validity.

As with many of his plays, Shakespeare wrote King Lear by expanding on previous accounts of the plot and characters. Shakespeare’s main source for King Lear was an anonymous play that was published twelve years before the first performance of Shakespeare’s version, and was titled The True Chronicle History of King Leir, and his three daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella. In this King Leir, the traditional ending in which Cordelia lives and Lear is restored to the throne is used, although a version of the Kent character did appear for the first time (Mabillard). Shakespeare’s most drastic change, and there were many, is arguably not even his altered ending and killing of Lear and Cordelia, but his creation of the Gloucester family and the inclusion of the second plot line, which never appeared in any prior version of the legend of King Lear. Shakespeare drew the character of Gloucester from the King of Paphlagonia in Sir Philip Sydney’s novel “Arcadia”, in which the King’s bastard son, wanting to inherit the lands, turns the King against the legitimate brother. Shakespeare fuses this premise with the previous versions of “King Leir” to create the masterpiece that is today’s definitive account of Lear.

            King Lear is widely considered Shakespeare’s most beautiful, elaborate, and intricate play, however critical opinions of the inclusion of the parallel plots differ. While many critics consider Shakespeare’s union of the play’s parallel plots one of his greatest achievements (Somroo), others, such as A.C. Bradley, find that it distracts and detracts from what the story tries to communicate (Kahan 58). While many argue the duality of the plot emphasizes its themes, critics such as Leo Tolstoy find that “the fact that Lear’s relations with his daughters are the same as those of Gloucester with his sons, makes one feel yet more strongly that in both cases the relations are quite arbitrary and do not flow from the characters nor the natural course of events.” (qtd. in Kahan 58-59 ). This very aspect of the double plot that is so appealing to so many critics is, according to Tolstoy and others, one of the play’s biggest flaws. This mirroring element sparks another criticism of the play’s duplicity—the claims that the new characters, particularly Gloucester and Edgar, are not “full” characters. Of the father and son, A.C. Bradley says that Gloucester is neither “‘very interesting [n]or very distinct.’ He is kind of a nothing. We have no sense of him as a person: ‘He often gives one the impression of being wanted mainly to fill a place in the scheme of the play’”, and that of all the characters in the play “Edgar excites the least enthusiasm” (qtd. in Kahan 58, 53). Perhaps Bradley simply attended an amateur production of the play, but his feelings are shared by Northrop Frye, who belittles Gloucester and Edgar’s roles as inconsequential (53).

It’s reasonable too, why one might misunderstand and underestimate Gloucester and Edgar. They often step aside so that the plot of Lear and his daughters can be highlighted, and thus the Earl and his son are in the reader’s mind measure against those characters. Gloucester’s ordinariness in verse and character act as a foil to Lear’s greatness in poetry and stature, and this is why a reader can often fail to realize how Gloucester may be the better man. To simplify, Gloucester is a giver while Lear is merely a lender (Perret 92). In Act 1, Lear gives up his entire kingdom to his daughters, yet cannot part with his greatness and still expects to be treated like a King. Gloucester, on the other hand, gives freely, fully aware of the consequences. To Poor Tom, he says “Here, take this purse, thou whom the heavens' plagues / Have humbled to all strokes: that I am wretched / Makes thee the happier: heavens, deal so still!” (Shakespeare IV.i.74-76), whereas Lear gives nothing to Tom in the storm. Before he realizes Edmund’s betrayal, Gloucester confides in his son his selfless plan to help Lear: “Though I die for it, as no less is threatened me, the King my old master must be relieved. There is some strange thing toward, Edmund; pray you, be careful” (III.iii.18-20). In fact, the cause for each of the old men’s downfall reflects their own levels of morality. Lear causes the events that bring him down through his misjudgment of his daughters, where Gloucester is far more innocent, as he is blatantly lied to by his son Edmund. In spite of this, it is Gloucester who, at the end of the play, sees good in everyone, from Poor Tom to the old man that acts as his guide. Lear, however, is filled with hatred and he curses the entire world—“You sulphurous and thought-executing fires, / Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts, / Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder, / Smite flat the thick rotundity o' the world!” and tries to preserve only himself (III.ii.4-7). The reader frequently misses these acts of selflessness from Gloucester, because the old man is often measured with Edgar, who spends much of the play at his side (Perret 99). Edgar, throughout the play, gives all. Despite how wronged he’s been, he risks his life continuously to save others, knowing he will receive no thanks (especially since he’s in disguise for all of it). This is where A.C. Bradley underestimates Edgar’s character. Shakespeare’s inclusion of the two brothers pits two contrasts against each other—Edmund, who is the personification of evil, and Edgar, who is the embodiment of good. It is as if Edgar, being the legitimate son, properly inherited the morality gene from his good parents, where Edmund being the bastard did not receive a full dose. The two brothers, in any case, act as the extremes of the sides which all characters in the play choose—they are the captains, if not the star players, of the competing black and white teams, at odds with each other until their final battle, which doubly demonstrates the struggle for power between bastard and legitimate son (Kahan 53). Taking the spotlight off Gloucester even further, his death occurs offstage to make room for the dramatic demise of Lear, which becomes final thought left with the reader as they depart from the story.

Though Gloucester may not been seen as Lear’s equal upon casual reading, he certainly matches Lear’s importance in function to the play. The Gloucester family plot is woven into Lear’s seamlessly. It takes care of it’s own development, often through reaction to the Lear storyline, without interrupting or delaying the King’s own tale. “And with what ingenuity and skill are the two main parts of the composition dovetailed into one another!” says A.W. Schlegel, “The pity felt by Gloster [Gloucester] for the fate of Lear becomes the means which enables his son Edmund to effect his destruction”, referring to how Edmund informs Regan and Cornwall that Gloucester goes off to help Lear (qtd. in Kahan 58). This betrayal leads to Gloucester’s blinding at the hands of Cornwall, a horrifying scene appealing very mightily to pathos.  It is the most shocking moment of the play, intensifying the pity felt for the good people like Gloucester who suffer. Gloucester’s physical torture contrasts the insane Lear’s mental torture, which demonstrates another purpose of Gloucester’s character in the play. Although he mirrors Lear in most aspects, Gloucester’s character differs just enough to provide some contrast to the King. Gloucester, being a man of higher morals and less blame, arguably suffers more unjustly than Lear, yet is allowed a small redemption in his final scenes. He becomes at last a man who can, at least slightly and figuratively, see, as he realizes how Edmund betrayed him and discovers that Edgar is safe.  He, in a sense, dies happy. This cannot be said the same for Lear, but although the men differ in their deaths, their lives are continuous parallels of one another. Both are victims of filial ingratitude, caused by their own misjudgments, both are betrayed and abandoned by their children to wander Britain, both undertake torture and lose their ability to clearly see, and both died without proper redemption. While many critics view the echoing plot of Gloucester to be redundant, it’s effect remains necessary. This simple repetition of events emphasizes the play’s final theme and heightens the effect of catharsis felt at the completion of the play. A final contrast between Lear and Gloucester, their social status, is also important to the universality of the play. In human nature, what is true for the King is true for a nobleman. It is true for the peasant; it is true for the beggar.  This is demonstrated by King Lear’s portrayal of a King and a lower Earl both experiencing similar situations.  The duplicity of the plot emphasizes King Lear‘s theme and demonstrates that it is applicable to everyone.

Shakespeare’s greatest work would not be complete without the characters of Gloucester, Edgar, and Edmund. With them, Shakespeare ties together a perfect synthesis in King Lear‘s parallel plots. While critics from A.C. Bradley to Aristotle might not agree with Shakespeare, the Bard here sings us a masterful duet, in which he harmonizes the two stories in his own form of unity. Shakespeare’s significant contribution to the legend of King Lear is not just its tragic ending, it’s the new impact he gives it through the horror and redemption of the story of the Earl. As in iterations before, Lear blindly travels his same journey across his kingdom, only now in Gloucester he has been given a companion, a countermelody to call and answer to.

Works Cited

Kahan, Jeffrey. “Introduction: Shakespeare’s King Lear.” King Lear: New critical essays. New York: Routledge, 2008. 1-103. Google Books. Web. 24 Nov. 2010. .

Mabillard, Amanda. “The True Chronicle History of King Leir.” Shakespeare Online. N.p., 20 Aug. 2000. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. .

Perret, Marion D. “Lear’s Good Old Man.” Shakespeare Studies 17 (1985): 89-93. Rpt. in Literary Reference Center. N.p.: Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corporation, n.d. N. pag. Literary Reference Center. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Somroo, A. R. “Double Plot in King Lear.” N.d. Scribd. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. .